Once again I find Mr. Hawks and myself on opposite sides of the fence.
What he disregards as “sub-standard rifles with “flimsy, injection molded plastic stocks” might well be viewed by others as “economical”.
My primary criteria for a rifle is that it is accurate and durable. Next come form, fit, function, suitability to task and price, not necessarily in that order. Cosmetics are a distant concern.
To this end I find inexpensive rifles quite useful and desirable for certain applications. In other words, “flimsy, injection molded plastic stocks“, “plastic” trigger guards and “receivers that are simply drilled from bar stock and that substitute heavy washers for integral recoil lugs” are not necessarily a bad thing.
Hawks denigrates “free floating barrels”, yet I free float all of mine. How nice if the manufacturers would do it for me! He denigrates extraction slots as “merely a slot cut into the tubular receiver--is so small that it is difficult or impossible to load a cartridge directly into the chamber, or manually remove a fired case”, yet smaller slots add to the stiffness of the receiver and I have never found it all that difficult to load or remove a cartridge. While he has a point, perhaps, on short action receivers that really aren’t, that’s more a cosmetic issue. While I like Ruger one piece bolts, many millions of multi-piece bolts have performed flawlessly for many years. And I have some news for Mr. Hawks – every bolt has multiple pieces if you count the spring and firing pin. The removable bolt head that Savage uses is actually an advantage when it comes time to rebarrel as it allows easy changes to cartridges that have different head dimensions. Plastic detachable magazines also have certain advantages, including that they don’t rust. (That said, I am not a big fan of detachable magazines except in military arms.) Hawks rightfully claims “Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter--but not stronger--than forged steel” – well, he’s right. But the difference in weight between a forged, cast or drilled receiver or bolt of the same design is minimal and nobody I know makes forged stocks or magazines. (And rightfully so.) Hawks goes off on a rant about matte finishes but ignores the disadvantages of high gloss (i.e. reflective) metal. He complains about black stocks but doesn’t say what color he prefers. (Pink, maybe? White? Blue? Red? Zebra stripes?) He complains about checkering that is divided into “several small patches”, not because it isn’t functional but because it costs less to produce.
Finally, he says he tries “not to over emphasize the importance of accuracy in big game hunting rifles”. While I generally agree that a rifle that will “average 1.5 MOA” is a “good one”, I have to say that many inexpensive rifles with features he complains about are also good ones. If he wants rifles with the features he likes, there are plenty available. But if he wants them to be inexpensive, he needs to get realistic.
This last weekend I helped a good friend sight in his Remington ADL .30-06 that I had rescoped. The stock is pretty well beat up and the trigger is far too heavy for my tastes, having in all likelihood never been adjusted. Dan doesn’t care that it has a drilled receiver or lacks a floor plate or that it’s cosmetically challenged. He didn’t know the difference between a floated barrel and an unfloated one until I explained it to him. He bought a number of years ago, sight unseen, based on recommendations from a trusted family member. He bought it to hunt with. And he’s been killing things with it ever since.
It would be interesting to see Mr. Hawks list all the features he wants and then check the cost of such a rifle. If that was all that was available, I would have far fewer rifles in the safe...
